In Depth

The Department of Child Services failed to prove that a father’s children were removed for cause required under state
statute, and the trial court erred in terminating the parental rights of the Dearborn County man.

Q.M. showed signs of abuse and, after a DCS investigation, both siblings were designated as children in need of services.
B.M. later signed a Stipulation of CHINS agreement wherein he acknowledged that Q.M.’s injuries “would not have
occurred but for the act or omission of a parent, custodian, or guardian.” He participated in counseling but failed
to successfully complete court-ordered therapy and parenting evaluations. He demonstrated “extreme behavior” that
was sanctioned by the court after his 2010 breakup with the children’s mother.

“For example, father sent 96 text messages and made numerous phone calls concerning mother and her whereabouts to the
home-based counselor’s personal cell phone and home phone during a single weekend, causing the provider to feel threatened
and to request no further work with father,” the court record says.

However, DCS terminated the father’s parental rights without required findings, Judge Elaine Brown wrote in a unanimous
opinion.

“An involuntary termination petition must allege, and the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence, that the
child was either removed from the parent for at least six months under a dispositional decree or removed from the family home
at least fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months ‘at the time the involuntary termination petition was filed,’”
Brown wrote.

“Based on the foregoing, it is clear that DCDCS (Dearborn County Indiana Dept. of Child Services) failed to satisfy
the mandates of Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(A). Thus, the trial court committed reversible error in granting DCDCS’s
involuntary termination petitions. … The trial court’s judgment terminating Father’s parental rights
to Q.M. and E.M. must be reversed.”

Brown closed with a footnote: “Our decision today should not be construed as a negative comment upon the sufficiency
of the evidence supporting the trial court’s specific findings or ultimate decision to terminate father’s parental
rights. Moreover, in reaching this decision, we are keenly aware of the fact that both Q.M.’s and E.M.’s sense
of permanency and well-being hangs in the balance. Further delay in the final resolution of the children’s cases is
most certainly regrettable, but the court is bound by statute to ensure the process.”

Conversations

0 Comments

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or
hateful.

You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.

Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content
are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.

No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are
relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.

We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag
a post simply because you disagree with it.